What the 5th IPCC Assessment Doesn't Include

A heavyweight boxer in the climate change match is missing from the 5th climate assessment report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.

Permafrost, which is frozen ground that doesn't melt during the summer, covers 24% of the land in the northern hemisphere. Permafrost acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter, and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, which is twice the amount of carbon that's currently in our atmosphere. When the organic matter thaws, that carbon will be exposed to the elements, made available to escape into the air in the form of heat-trapping gases, with the potential to knock out our efforts to slow down global warming with a one-two punch.

This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century. But research done in the past few years shows that leaving the permafrost effect out of the climate models results in a far more conservative estimate of how our climate will change. Scientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5°F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.

To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901, and climate scientists suggest that we should keep global warming below 3.6°F in order to avoid a "dangerous" level of warming. The climate models used in Friday's report, without the permafrost effect, estimate that by the end of this century we will have warmed at least 7°F if we continue "business as usual" with no efforts to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

Permafrost contains more than soil. It acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter like leaves and plant roots that would otherwise be broken down by bacteria and releasing greenhouse gases into the air.

In addition to carbon dioxide, an exceptionally potent greenhouse gas is released from organic matter. In moist areas, most of the emissions will be of methane, a gas that has 20 to 25 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

There is no doubt that permafrost is melting. Trees that have grown for years in permafrost are finding themselves on softer soil, which causes them to lean or tip over, creating "drunken forests." Roads are crumbling, buildings are melting into the earth, and along coastlines, the earth is melting into the sea. The big question is how much methane and carbon dioxide will be released, and how quickly, as the frozen tundra continues to thaw.

What difference does it make? There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, so little change in that amount, so many factors which make these minor changes, so much we still have to learn about meteorology and climatology, and so little accurate data (35 years of satellite data) nobody can possibly call themselves a scientist if they go about screaming "Man-made global warming." Such a claim is absurd. It is political for power and money. They create a new market for alternative sources while first having to destroy the ones which already exist, such as coal and nuclear, both of which are clean and with the new Argonne reactor technology, incredibly safe. That eliminates the competition to open the investment field for the wind and solar market. Unscrupulous business derived from a completely false and proven wrong claim that we know for sure man is warming the earth. We know that there are cycles which are perfectly natural, yet we ignore that aspect and push propaganda. We have been so wrong already. The polar ice cap was supposed to have been gone 4 years ago, and it is still roughly the same size. Oceans are still not well understood, but we do know that they take longer to shift in currents, temperature, and so forth. Nonsense about where I used to ski now I can't, or where I used to swim, now the ocean temps are higher are not science and are a mere snapshot in the grand scheme of climate changes throughout the age of the earth in tiny places on the earth. I am called a "denier", so if Global warming people want to slap labels, I call them "liars" for that is what is being told. I deny lies, not the truth. This global warming debacle is about the most absurd one I have ever witnessed. The truth should be told, and the truth is "The love of money is the root of all evil." Invent a crisis then create the need for marketing devices to meet this crisis while detroying the economy of the country by eliminating the coal and nuclear industries, which are the main competitors. Weather forecasts are still inaccurate, climate forecasts even more so, the models still have a long way to go for real dependability, especially the GFS which flip-flops its forecast every reinitialization cycle at times. But somehow, amazingly, we know for sure we must trash the US economy and put 10's of thousands of people if not more, out of work because we know for absolute certain that man is warming the earth, though to prove it we have to alter the older temperature records and in Canada eliminate 600 of the 630 some odd weather station's data and use only the station data nearest the water (which by the way just happens to run higher in temp because it is natural for them to in order to make it appear that global warming is occurring at an anomolous rate. Yes it is warm this year, but wait... it will go down because it has undoubtedly warmed at least this much before then dropped again. Weather used to be a safe topic to discuss; now it is ridiculous!

Methane is CH4 and carbon dioxide is CO2. In the atmosphere methane in relatively short-lived but far more potent than CO2 as a GHG. CH4 degrades in the atmosphere into CO2 as -> CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O, and the CO2 is long-lived (40 years or more).

Angela's news is ancient news. We've known about CH4 in the permafrost for decades. As for climate change deniers, just remember this: in every year in the 70's i spent time surfing in southern california. Back then, winter time water temp would usually be 48 to 54. Today, its 61 in San Diego's ocean. 7-10 degrees warmer than in the 70's. In the summer, in the 70's, water temps in so. cal. never exceeded 72 for more than a week. This past year, 76 was a common recording for much of the summer (just 3 degrees less than in Fiji, for example).

everyone argues about climate change and its cause. that argument is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the global transportation system is not built on a sustainable fuel. Engine exhaust poisons the livable portion of the atmosphere (sea level to 15000 feet. Next time you want to get a sense of how thin our livable atmosphere is, go jog a 5K. If you think engine exhaust is not poison, go shut yourself in your garage and start the engine. You'll be dead in 60 minutes or less. Is that really what we should pump into the atmosphere?

Quoting 98. BaltimoreBrian: Both carbon dioxide and methane contain carbon. The mass of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is one measurement used. Also, Angela Fritz works for The Washington Post now, and no longer comments on this blog.

Thanks, but salt contains both sodium and chlorine... each very toxic and dangerous to humans...Why does a measure of 'carbon' seem to be the meter-stick, rather than concentrations of carbon dioxide or methane ?

I've been searching for years for a good explanation of what caused Each and Every Major Ice Age on Earth and finally discovered one or two graphs (the first two on my page at http://www.plusaf.com/global-warming/globalwarming 3.htm , where it appears that several possible driving forces with noticeable periodicity may actually be related to the recurrence of Ice Ages.

If that correlation/causation is accurate or valid, we're more likely on our way to the next Major Ice Age in maybe a few thousand (or tens of thousands of] years. MMGW may just be forestalling such a cataclysmic event. Imagine 7 or 9 billion humans trying to pack into the land masses between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn to survive...

Both carbon dioxide and methane contain carbon. The mass of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is one measurement used. Also, Angela Fritz works for The Washington Post now, and no longer comments on this blog.

Quoting 90. jocapo: global warming is a scam perpetrated on the American people. Furthermore, it has divided the nation, a common tactic by a class of people making a power grab. Unless you are filthy rich, you ought to be careful to back these people, who if they have their way, energy prices will become very expensive. That translates into everything becoming more expensive.

If you'd actually said 'global warming denial is a scam perpetrated on the American people', then I could actually agree with what you said. Otherwise, I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards.

Interesting... and the photos are cool to look at... Being from the deep south... Mississippi, I have no understanding of things way up north. I did however hear about buildings have some problems with the thawing of the frozen ground up there.

The Spaceship of the Imagination is headed for the hot and hellish landscape of Venus.

This Sunday night (June 1), the Fox TV series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" will send viewers to Earth's evil twin to learn about the greenhouse effect and climate change.

Venus' dense atmosphere is mostly made up of carbon dioxide, with small doses of nitrogen and sulfuric acid. This composition creates a runaway greenhouse effect that bakes Venus to even hotter temperatures than the surface of Mercury, the planet closest to the sun.

The second-to-last episode of the series, titled "The World Set Free," will also explore the effects of global warming and humanity's impact on the Earth's atmosphere — and what people can do to mitigate the damage.<

The 13-episode "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" is a reboot of the classic minisereis "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage," which was hosted by the famed astronomer Carl Sagan and first aired on PBS in 1980. The new series debuted on March 9 and is hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and written by Steven Soter and Ann Druyan, Sagan's widow.

Sagan, who died in 1996, had a special connection with Venus: He was the first to create the greenhouse model for Venus' atmosphere, showing that the planet had much higher temperatures than previously suspected.

"Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" airs Sundays at 9 p.m. ET/PT on Fox. It is rebroadcast on the National Geographic Channel on Mondays at 10 p.m. ET/PT. Check local listings.

So why didn't the IPPC include permafrost data if they already know that it can triple the amount of carbon. That is a significant omission!Maybe the next time a Russian hacker releases another batch of what IPPC chooses not to release we will know the answer.What is the right amount of carbon, the right temperature, the right sea level?

how long will the Global warming Hysterics keep predicting that which is clearly NOT HAPPENING? Just as likely in the next 60 or 70 years that we will cool as much as a degree or two.... since this is the earths natural pattern, mostly in response to solar activity and volcanism. It would be better to concern yourself about the state of your soul and the care of your neighbors, IMHO

dckubler: Keep in mind that the surface thaws throughout the permafrost areas of the boreal forest and tundra every summer, so each year new organic is built up by vegetation and is slowly added to the giant pile of frozen organic matter extending deeper down. Organic matter can be added year by year without ever melting the buried permafrost.

Why did the permafrost freeze? It holds tens of thousands of year of organic matter so at some point in time the water was liquid. If the weather was warmer for tens of thousands of years aren't we returning to a "normal" climate? A consistent theory should be able to explain both cooling and warming. Just tuning a model to a short-term trend is useless "science".

It is futile to debate with cognitively challenged people who don't and don't want to understand science. One might as well just bark like a dog rather than attempt intelligent discourse with such people. My recommendation is that the proper response to dogmatic deniers be simply, "woof".

Dear Angela, thank you. A question: are you up on the facts & controversy regarding the currently unfolding rapid destabilization of the Arctic subsea methane hydrates ... the so-called 'Arctic methane catastrophe' or 'time bomb' that some credible climate scientists see as accelerating & completely overshadowing the permafrost problem you speak of via multiple self-reinforcing positive feedback loops. There is even some credible discussion that this particular mechanism, superimposed on all the others, may be the likely & imminent trigger of a major extinction event, akin to the Permian Extinction, unfolding on a mere decadal scale.

Some fear the tipping point for self-generation may be long passed, with little possibility of human remediation, even if everyone could suddenly agree it's a global emergency & all human carbon inputs to the atmosphere were immediately & completely halted.

What's your opinion on all this?

(References available on request, though just a Google search will lead you to much of the data & controversy.)

Why not just let the denialist trolls be trolls. It's their right to post here, but there's no real possibility of opening their minds with facts. Let them post their links to faux data & conspiracy theories justifying 'business as usual', which seems to be their aim. Don't let them distract from the real purpose & contribution of Angela's work. Just ignore them as the provocateurs they are, but with compassion, & forgive them, "for they know not what they do". If we take the bait & diffuse our energy, they win, though at the terrible cost of guarantying an unsustainable future for the planet & all it's inhabitants.

Since I was discussing two completely different ideas (one being a simple attempt to understand what a particular phrase means, and the other being how to approach an entire topic of study using traditional research tools) pointing out what you call a contradiction is yet another example of a correlative fallacy of logic.

Put simply, I am not going to the library or university to waste my time in researching a meaningless statement such as "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange."

However, you can do it if you wish. Judging from your behavior on Dr. Rood's blog, I think it would be a good exercise for you to visit your nearest library or university to research your views on climate change.

Quoting 68. AGWSpecialist:Exactly. It IS the way the scientific method, stats, and math works. So I'd like to see a rebuttal from you from the contents in post #60. I have seen nothing from you yet. Do you have it in you?

Quoting 70. AGWSpecialist:Friend. No need to be so upset. If you can't provide a solid, scientific rebuttal to the empiric scientific evidence presented in comment 60, it is okay. The contents of the post including the links will still stand. No problem. But if you can and therefore can prove me wrong, then great. Okay?

Didn't we have this discussion over in Dr. Rood's blog, AGWSpecialist? You cannot demand someone else rebuke an alternative hypothesis when it has not been statistically tested against the null hypothesis (i.e., the current state of the science) and found to be valid.

You have proven nothing. You've posted no datasets, no linear regression analysis, no anova, and no correlation calculations. You haven't even shown that you did a proper literature review. Put simply, there is nothing substantive that you or The1realist have posted here that shows any sort of proper scientific or statistical analysis against the current state of the science behind human-induced climate change. No one can prove you wrong, because you have not presented anything that scientifically validates your opinion.

And there you go. I hope you enjoy not having a scientific leg to stand on.

Quoting 60. The1realist:Although I seriously disbelieve that you even understand what a statistical analysis of insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange is let alone how to do one if you could find the correct data sets.

Hello The1realist. I assume that you just recently signed up for an account here on Weather Underground because one or more of your climate contrarian friends (or perhaps one of your paid supervisors) saw me as a threat, pointed to my comments here or in Dr. Rood's blog, then directed you to take me down. Mind you, that's just an opinionated assumption on my part, but if I'm at all accurate, I hope you consider that what you're doing here is extraordinarily disingenuous, selfish, and goes against the basic tenants of humanity as it serves only to perpetuate the lie that human-induced global climate change is a myth. To perpetuate this lie is to appeal to the emotional fear in others; that part of each of us that hopes that AGW theory is wrong, and hopes that the scientists have falsified data, and hopes that this is all just a natural cycle.

I wish that hope was well-founded, but the numbers say otherwise.

Below, as I peel away the layers of your maligned written attack on my person (and NOT the science of human-induced climate change), I appeal to your humanity to cease your role in the damaging disinformation campaign in which you have become a part of. If you keep up this charade, you'll continue to damage our lives, ecosystems, and the entire planet just to satisfy your own selfish needs, whatever they may be.

(End assumptive and opinionated rant)

Next, let's look at your opposing argument of "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange". One can simply Google the phrase "insulative gas exchange" using quotations for exact phrasing and find that nowhere else does it exist on the internet except here. No science paper has published a paper that includes it, no blog (except this one) has mentioned it. It exists solely as a made-up phrase of your own construction. The same can be said for "tropospheric convective thermal exchange."

If I were to interpret your meaning with the phrase "insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange", I would translate it as "greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere mix with the rest of the atmosphere." This is an axiom, and a meaningless statement as an argument against human-induced climate change. NOAA's carbon tracker does a very good job showing how carbon dioxide (by far the largest volume greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) mixes within the different layers of the atmosphere. So yes, as a reductive rebuttal to your made-up phrase, greenhouse gasses do indeed mix in the lower atmosphere.

A statistical analysis of the data would render information.

Then actually do one. Don't post links. Just show us you even know how to do a basic analysis of variance using the correct formulas on a simple dataset, then we can talk.

Your demand for statistical analysis I figure at this point was supposed to be a statement that if empirical data were used you would reject it in favor of subjective statistical information.

No. Science and statistical testing are not about falsification. This is a common misconception. Anyone with any training in science and statical analysis should know this. I'm sorry if you do not. To quote Schuyler W. Huck from "Statisical Misconceptions":

"Those who think that null hypotheses can be proven false have mixed together, inappropriately, the logic of falsification and the statistical procedure of hypothesis testing... nothing is truly falsified when a null hypothesis is rejected. The observation of one black swan is sufficient to falsify the claim that all swans are white. That single black swan proves that the claim is wrong. It is dangerous to accept or promote the belief that a rejected (null hypothesis) has been proven wrong because sample data never constitute a black swan."

Although it is common for naive people to believe they sound sophisticated using words and phrases only partially understood if at all.

And again, you call me naive. You don't even know me, yet you jump right in and attack my person with pejoratives. I'm sorry if you and your friends who do not understand science feel as if I am a threat to your way of thinking, but that's what science does: It challenges our current way of thinking en-route to a deeper meaning of the universe around us than we would otherwise get.

Here's a thought: When another point-of-view challenges your own way of thinking, don't immediately attack them. Don't degrade them, don't contort their opinion into what you believe to be a fabrication. Try to see it from their point of view, then go and gather all relevant information on the subject -- REAL information (library, university, etc.), not just on the internet -- before passing judgement. Do it for yourself; not to "one-up" your opponent, but for your own personal enrichment. I'll bet you come away with a better understanding of the subject.

The web addresses above provide information, that if you can overcome your emotional attachment to the global warming concept.

First of all, each one of those links do not provide the actual dataset for ANY alternative hypothesis, to say nothing of testing such a dataset to the current state of the science. Second, I have no emotional attachment to the reality of human-induced global warming. As I mentioned above, if there's any emotional attachment I have, it's to the hope that it's not real. This is where you and I differ: I know that my hope will never be fulfilled. I have compared and contrasted scientific sources before running the numbers on AGW theory myself, watched the discussions unfold for the past several decades, and concluded with much trepidation that the numbers are correct. As I've mentioned before, the basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate changes across the globe. None of these facts are in doubt, and each are backed by substantial peer-reviewed data that has survived countless reviews and raking over the coals by politicians and pundits.

Perhaps another emotion that I also embody is the anger towards people who lie, swindle, deceive, in order to perpetuate the idea that all of the data that climate scientists have worked on and devoted their careers to is somehow wrong, or that human-induced global warming is somehow not happening. However, I temper that anger with the realization and understanding that I have the facts on my side.

You do not.

The empirical data and formula that was used to establish the "tree ring temperature correlation" was destroyed never released.

This information is still used by "climate alarmists" even thought it can't be checked or duplicated. I believe that the discrepancies were a result of the researchers emotional attachment to the need to be right, this would explain the unduplicatable process easily.

Your jump from "destroyed (or) never released" to "can't be checked or duplicated" shows the hypocrisy of your statements, as well as your own emotional tendency to change the "facts" whenever it suits you. Which one is it? Was the data destroyed? Or was it just never released (as I proved wrong above)? Wait... you just wrote that the data "can't be checked or duplicated"... That means it WAS released, right? For how can it be said that the data can't be checked or duplicated, if it's been attempted? Can anybody actually check for lack of duplication in data that was destroyed or never released?

Do you see the hypocrisy of your statements?

I'm not going to further engage you on the tree ring data, because you've already proven that you cannot hold to the truth, and you move the goalposts whenever it suits you. This is known as "confusing the argument", which is a hallmark of an individual who is attempting to manipulate the argument to plant disinformation.

the second URL posted is a simple information graph that shows the period that had the highest estimated biological support capabilities were periods of time when the global mean temperature was above what is is now. It further shows that it was warmer than now for more time than human history encompasses. In fact it shows the majority of Earth's history was much warmer than any point in human existence.

What does this do to counter the truth of human-induced climate change/anthrophogenic global warming? Yes, it was very warm during the time of dinosaurs. There is no dispute of this in the scientific literature. Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but what is the relevance of that argument? Cannot natural cycles be reproduced or accentuated by human interference? Cannot additional carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel combustion make the Earth warm again? Cannot the speed and efficiency of dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in only a few centuries bring about those same conditions in only a fraction of the time it took nature to do the same? Would that not impact life on Earth, which often relies on long timespans to adapt to a new environment?

Please do not feel that I wish to disabuse your notion that you have obtained information on the subject that atmospheric gasses do have an effect on the climate. I do however wish you would disassociate your emotions from the debate. If you can detach yourself emotionally long enough to watch a TEDTALKS video please cut an paste this address and watch. This is an alternative explanation for the "greenhouse effect".

As mentioned above, my emotions are beside the point. Your attack on me is a correlative fallacy of logic, extending from the proposition that because I am an emotional person (which I do not dispute, because I am human), that my entire argument is suspect. From this, your entire argument here is based on discredit. Because I do not want to tread where others have explained so very well, I offer this quote from Dr. Ricky Rood here at Weather Underground:

Your "... (form of argument relies) on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect."

Quoting 70. AGWSpecialist:Friend. No need to be so upset. If you can't provide a solid, scientific rebuttal to the empiric scientific evidence presented in comment 60, it is okay. The contents of the post including the links will still stand. No problem. But if you can and can prove me wrong, then great. Okay?

If climate is averaged over at least a 30 year period how is it possible to use 8 or 13 or any number less than 30 to try and claim a valid trend? Can you explain this?

Quoting 68. AGWSpecialist:Exactly. It IS the way the scientific method, stats, and math works. So I'd like to see a rebuttal from you from the contents in post #60. I have seen nothing from you yet. Do you have it in you?

Your so smart, tell me why it would be okay to use 8 or 13 years of data to get a climatological trend (The standard time period is 30 years to define climate) Also explain why it is okay to ignore the energy used to warm to oceans in trying to get an accurate global temperature trend. I'll wait on you to explain the methodology.

Quoting 66. AGWSpecialist:In your opinion, okay. Fine. But I am not interested in your opinion. And either is science. Sure, throw around names, accuse us of cherry picking and posting nonsense. But your job is to explain WHY it is nonsense. Refute it. Go ahead. Just don't say "I don't Like it!!!" and run away.

It's not valid methodology. It's not science. That's not my opinion, that's the way research methodology, statistics, and math works. Man, you are dense.

Quoting 64. AGWSpecialist:Okay. But, you still did not elaborate or even comment about anything in the paragraph below all the links. We'll be waiting...

Cherry picking start points for graphs isn't valid. Looking at only surface temps and ignoring the ocean is not valid. Why do I have to refute anything you dolts post? It's all garbage..you either are maliciously posting it or ignorant. By your attitude, I'm going with #1.

Quoting 6. Daisyworld:Good to see you posting again, Angela. Thank you for your contributions.

I did some work several years ago on frost-boil ecosystems just north of the Brooks Range. I remember kayaking up (down) the Sagavanirktok River towards Deadhorse, and setting up camp by a cliff area to look at some mudstone outcroppings for a day. There, on the desolate tundra without anything taller than a 4-foot willow bush for hundreds of miles around, I found the fossilized remains of a birch tree leaf from millions of years prior. It was amazing to be reminded of how dynamic our planet's climate is; and very sobering to realize just how quickly the area I was standing in could be transformed back to conditions where that birch leaf once prospered.

Yes the climate on this planet has been very much warmer before humans I guess the dinosaurs must have been driving SUVs and building factories. Thank goodness the extinction question is answered.

Quoting 61. Naga5000:@ #60 What a denialist treasure trove of pure nonsense complete with links to conspiracy blogs. In the future, please don't reference statistics and notrickszone in the same statement. It's insulting.

I just came over here after I saw your post pop p.Looks like this thread is overrun with anti science maroons.

Although I seriously disbelieve that you even understand what a statistical analysis of insulative gas exchange in tropospheric convective thermal exchange is let alone how to do one if you could find the correct data sets. A statistical analysis of the data would render information. Your demand for statistical analysis I figure at this point was supposed to be a statement that if empirical data were used you would reject it in favor of subjective statistical information. Although it is common for naive people to believe they sound sophisticated using words and phrases only partially understood if at all. The web addresses above provide information, that if you can overcome your emotional attachment to the global warming concept. The empirical data and formula that was used to establish the "tree ring temperature correlation" was destroyed never released. This information is still used by "climate alarmists" even thought it can't be checked or duplicated. I believe that the discrepancies were a result of the researchers emotional attachment to the need to be right, this would explain the unduplicatable process easily. the second URL posted is a simple information graph that shows the period that had the highest estimated biological support capabilities were periods of time when the global mean temperature was above what is is now. It further shows that it was warmer than now for more time than human history encompasses. In fact it shows the majority of Earth's history was much warmer than any point in human existence. Please do not feel that I wish to disabuse your notion that you have obtained information on the subject that atmospheric gasses do have an effect on the climate. I do however wish you would disassociate your emotions from the debate. If you can detach yourself emotionally long enough to watch a TEDTALKS video please cut an paste this address and watch. This is an alternative explanation for the "greenhouse effect".

Quoting 52. leftlink:In the Wunderground discussion of "stratospheric cooling" there is the following excerpt:

"The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun."

I am wondering if this explanation is too complicated. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that when you insulate the floor of your attic, the temperature in your house will go up (if you keep burning as much fuel to heat your house each winter) but the temperature in the attic will go down.

The issue with troposphere warming without warming beyond is the insulation interrupts convection by being a solid barrier, co2 is a gas and is part of the convective currents. Even being an insular gas it still must follow the rules of thermal exchange in thermal convective heat exchange.

Quoting 57. dutchessweather:I'd say the truth is what is likely missing from any IPCC report! The data are in (30 years since the theory was seriously considered, along with thousands of years of paleo-records), and the man-made global warming theory has been proven false! Of course, now that the fraudsters call it "climate change", anything fits the theory, right?

Show us the data supporting your conclusion that HUman-induced global warming is false.

No links. No diversions. Just your data.

Warning: If you cannot establish your alternate hypothesis, nor adequately show us that you've done a sufficient literature review, nor correctly applied statistical analysis on your data to support your conclusion, your statement that "man-made global warming theory has been proven false" is without merit and meaningless (aka, you're lying).

I'd say the truth is what is likely missing from any IPCC report! The data are in (30+ years since the theory was seriously considered, along with thousands of years of paleo-records), and the man-made global warming theory has been proven false! Of course, now that the fraudsters call it "climate change", anything fits the theory, right?

"To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901".

This is so problematic that it is virtually meaningless. Why pick 1901 as the baseline? Has "the earth warmed" in 112 years, or do we happen to be in one of the recurring, intermittent warmer periods that have occurred in that time? How many times in the past centuries has it been this warm? Is the permafrost really affected by what warming has occurred? Most of the warming captured in that single figure of increase in average global temperature is the result of warming of the coldest temperatures and longer warm seasons. The permafrost won't have as far to warm, but it won't warm any faster, which can have an effect going through the solid-liquid transition.Climate models are defective in other ways. They don't account for increased infra-red radiation into space as surface temperature increases. They also haven't predicted the current 12-year halt in warming as CO2 levels have continued to increase.

Thank you, Angela, for keeping the IPCC honest. Can there be any doubt of how big a role we allow politics to play in this issue? Nationally, and internationally, we must continue to speak to the scientific facts; we must keep as much of the painful truth as is possible in front of our eyes and ears.

It would also be helpful to continue to point to the ways we already have in hand that we can use to stop cooking our planet. I have every confidence that together, we can gain the will to turn our destructive activities to constructive ends. We must implement non-carbon based energy means of power generation in all areas of our civilization.

If necessary, and I believe it will be necessary, we must as individual households across the world set about turning to non-carbon based sources of energy.We have the means to save ourselves, one family unit at a time.